Skip to main content

Closing of Rediffusion, Ending of Dialect Generation but Wage Gap remains


Well done bilingualism, well done speak Mandarin campaign.  And finally, let’s pay our last respect to Rediffusion and pay our respect to the dialect generation.  Do you still remember the Hokkien platoons? It had gone long ago and now it is the turn of dialect radio – another lost heritage of Singapore.  As reported in the media, the end of Rediffusion is due to less listeners of the older and dialect speaking generation. 

Is it so simple? Have state control, monopoly and fair competition nothing to do with the fate of Rediffusion?  We leave it to the historians.  However, even the PAP can do away with the dialects; there is still one problem that they cannot solve: low wage workers even they are better educated and English speaking.
   
The bilingualism and the speak Mandarin campaign happened to be coincided with our economic restructure.  Besides pushing English as the common language for all in Singapore, the mastery of English language in theory should also raise the income level for all.  So, we restructure the economy, we restructure the education system and we (over) emphasize the importance of English language.  But have all Singaporeans benefit from the re-structure?   
    
When we had the first wage restructure in the early 1980s, it also signaled the phasing out of low wage workers.  Of course, people or workers who were not proficient in English would suffer because not knowing English is almost equivalent to low skills low wages workers.  With the closing of Nantah and later on with the phasing out of Chinese schools, all young Singaporean workers are supposed to be English educated and command better or good English.  However, this has not solved the wage and income gap problem.

It looked like the wage restructure lasted for only a few years in the early 1980s and then it led to economic recession in 1985 and 1986.  After that, wage increase or restoration was not a welcome word for economic growth. In addition, because of the talent policy, on the one hand, wage increase was restrained but managerial salary and professional compensation were not.  To achieve high growth, these talent individuals and professionals must be highly rewarded so that they can make contributions to Singapore.   

Now, we not only have a worsening rich-poor gap, our better educated, English speaking workers are not better off than their dialect speaking counterparts some 30 years ago.  Why?  Are they not moving fast enough, catching up not quick enough or mastering English not enough?  Therefore, they are becoming money not enough.   


For young Singapore workers and service staff, the improvement achieved in the education level is not proportionally reflected in their wage increase.  This has become a catch up game.  Parents are demanding tuition, more tuition, more poly places, and more university places.   Everyone is looking for better and higher education but can this push up the wage level, close the rich and poor gap, narrow the ‘haves’ and ‘don’t haves’?  Most likely not because there is an oversupply of educated people in Singapore but not enough high paying jobs.

But the government insists there are plenty opportunities for social mobility.  The younger generation with better educated and English proficiency should do better than the dialect generation, the Hokkien platoon generation.  But how come the true picture seems to be different.  Instead of complaining to Rediffusion, they now voice their criticisms, concerns and complaints in social media.   

The situation must be very bad (and sad too) that there is a call for bold action to increase wages for low wage workers, service and administration staff for a continued period of 3 years.  How come we can allow such a worsening situation continuing for 30 years without action?  Has the NWC given a fair deal to our workers and not to mention the NTUC which supposes to fight for the workers?    

Rediffusion will soon lose their voice. Dialect generation will soon follow and disappear. The associated heritages with dialects will also diminish.  Bukit Brown too will be scaled down.  However, the rich-poor problem continues to exist and perhaps becomes more problematic.
   
Is this the worry of the PAP? Or is it the problem of the English speaking younger generation? The dialect generation will bring with them their regret when the time comes.  They have no strength to voice out, no English to write to social media, but the younger English speaking generation will be very different, especially in voting time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...